115 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

After reading many of the posts on targeting, weapons etc I came up with this idea.
There is normally a single targeting reticule in the centre of the HUD. On either side of the cockpit is a separate icon representing the mechs arms. If you click on one it turns into a target designator which you can click over any visible target. A separate reticule then appears on the HUD and moves to the designated target as the mech's computer moves the arm and weapons to bear on the designated target. I think that this is a feasible way of replicating how a mech is supposed to work. Wether this should also be done for the torso weapons is another matter, what do people think?. Weapon icons that bear and are in range could light up.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 25 November 2011 - 11:25 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

Out of curiousity (love the idea, by the by) how would you fire the Centre reticle weapons, vs. the arm-mounted ones?

[HardDrive]

I would think, it would be very similar to how you fire weapon groups. If you click on it to use it to target something would it not be your active weapon group? Just how i think it would work.

[Hayden]

I like the idea of a fixed "center" reticule for torso mounted weapons (like MW2, gotta move the torso) and a second movable reticule for the arm mounted weapons (like MW3).

EDIT: Maybe make arm weapons track faster than the torso can move?

EDIT: Maybe a mouse based system (for those who have no joysticks) hold down the right button to move torso, not holding right button means only the arms move.

EDIT: And weapons fire could be achieved by arranging weapons groups by torso and arm mounted guns, and/or binding certain weapons to certain mouse/keyboard/joystick buttons.

EDIT: Last thought. Because they would track faster, this also gives players a reason to mount weapons in the arms, depending on how much customization is allowed (depending on how slow the torso rotates).

Edited by hayden, 25 November 2011 - 11:51 AM.

[ManDaisy]

I could see it working this way.

Torso, unfixed reticule (small target area).

Arms, unfixed reticule(larger target area).

You would Ideally see only two reticules. Both would move as one. Targeting Area would be a smaller sphere(torso reach and arms) surrounded by a large sphere(arm reach only). Anthing outside the small circle, moving your torso cant account for it, only arms could. Anything inside the smaller circle both arms and torso could hit.


For example, assuming you dont rotate your torso and look strait ahead and walk strait ahead if your targeting something inside your small circle reach, a two unfixed reticules representing both your arm and torso reach could track a target. However if it strays outside the smaller circle then you should only be able to track it with your arm reticules while your toso reticules stays in the smaller circle.

and then you would have the extreme area, to the immediate left or right of the large sphere where only one arm could track, assuming you make the view 180 degrees

Gundam esk click and drag multiple lock on would be fun too.

hope this lionk works




red crosshair represents torso mounted weapons, blue crossharir arm mounted a weapons.

Edited by ManDaisy, 25 November 2011 - 12:28 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Garth Erlam, on 25 November 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

Out of curiousity (love the idea, by the by) how would you fire the Centre reticle weapons, vs. the arm-mounted ones?

By weapons group, as for the arms, alternatively you could have a button on the HUD, but prefer weapons groups.

[DCleric]

Shame you couldn't have targeting computers to let you designate a target for a weapon and then as your weapons assigned come into field of fire/view you could select that group and fine aim. Something like a ******** betty only an aiming amy. designate the atlas as target alpha and gauss cannon "Target alpha is in range" or target bravo with LRMS "target bravo is locked" I mean we usually have six groups we can set up and the keyboard mouse and most HOTAS set ups will let you configure for them but keeping track of six different targets at once is something else. would definitely bring information, communication and teamwork into play.
Just my rambling thoughts anyway.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

ManDaisy, on 25 November 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

I could see it working this way.

Torso, unfixed reticule (small target area).

Arms, unfixed reticule(larger target area).

You would Ideally see only two reticules. Both would move as one. Targeting Area would be a smaller sphere(torso reach and arms) surrounded by a large sphere(arm reach only). Anthing outside the small circle, moving your torso cant account for it, only arms could. Anything inside the smaller circle both arms and torso could hit.


For example if your targeting something inside your small circle reach, a two unfixed reticules representing both your arm and torso reach could track a target. However if it strays outside the smaller circle then you should only be able to track it with your arm reticules while your toso reticules stays in the smaller circle.

Gundam esk click and drag multiple lock on would be fun too.

I was thinking of 3 reticules, obviously each arm would only be able to track on their own side and to a little the other side of centre.
What it would mean is theoretically you could target 3 separate mechs. Ideal for flea swatting

[Phades]

It depends on turret speed and if some turrets will have fixed firing lines or not.

Having a ghost reticule or lag reticule behind the one you are actively aiming makes sense to represent the difference from where you want it and where the cannon is pointed now.

It will also depend on how active the targeting is implemented as well, such as if you are in weapon group 1 and all weapons in group 1 attempt to move to that shot point. Does that mean weapons in group 2 are attempting to do the same or do they remain in a neutral position until the weapon group is selected?

Any system that attempts to demonstrate how the machine is actually behaving will put forward an overall better play experience, as it will end up being less of a mystery as to why X didn't do Y like the player thought it should.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I assume that all torso mounted weapons are linked to the central and those in range/on target will light up. Fire control would be by groups. Arm mounted weapons would automatically target in centre reticule unless otherwise designated. I am assuming limited articulation of torso based weapons which have to be "aimed" in part by moving the torso and in part by the targeting computer. A "ghost" reticule is ideal for a sngle weapon or grouped weapons in similar location, but can't see it being viable for all weapons at once.

[Tierloc]

Single recticle is fine, whether it should follow where your aiming (yes) or float behind where your aiming.

If you need explanations for convergence, you're thinking too hard.

[guardiandashi]

my 2 cents

1-3 "player controlled" reticules but additional "ghost" reticules which corrispond to the individual weapons each of which has a "base accuracy" and tracking rate

altho I would prefer having a "fixed convergance" or an automated convergance at a convergance rate similar to the tracking rate.

[Webclaw]

Yah could go for a combination of the MW3 style and MW4 style, here's the explanation.

"A way to implement the advantages of free reticle aiming combined with the simplicity and ease of a locked reticle could be that whenever you look with your mouse/joystick your reticle that had before hand been perfectly centered with your torso weapons now splits into two due to the ability of the arm mounted weapons to move faster than the torso twist, while the reticle is now split into two the torso weapons, and torso, will now try and follow where the new arm based reticle is located effectively creating a constant "torso to reticle center" effect that allows for the simplicity of the locked reticle used in MechWarrior 2/4 and the advantage of having the arm weapons become more than just weapons waiting to be easily blown off."

[Melissia]

I prefer the system used in MW2 Mercenaries, but MW3 was fine too.


I also prefer to ignore that MW4 exists ,heh.

[Red Beard]

Tierloc, on 25 November 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Single recticle is fine, whether it should follow where your aiming (yes) or float behind where your aiming.

If you need explanations for convergence, you're thinking too hard.

Single reticle, all weapons fixated.

[Raeven]

MW3 gave you the option of a movable reticule. When you moved the reticule far enough to the right or left, torso weapons went offline and the arm weapon remained online. I personally didn't have enough hands to control the legs, torso, and the moveable reticule so I set the reticule to a single fixed point on the screen. It was a nice way to transition from torso front to arm weapons. I would have preferred it if you could unlock the reticule with the press of a button instead of having to change it in the game options. Hell, it might have been an option. It's been years since I played MW3.

MPBT used a fixed reticule in the center of the screen and changed weapon arcs by changing your Point of View. Your PoV determined what weapons were usable or not. All PoV had a reticule in the center of the screen if you had weapons that could fire in those PoV. So the few 'Mechs that had rear mounted weapons, like the Assassin (or is it the Centurion?), could fire it's rear weapon by looking backwards with the PoV hat. Arm weapons remained online if you looked to the right, left, up, or down. 'Mechs with flippable arms, like the Rifleman and Blackjack, kept their arm mounted weapons online when looking to the rear. The only difficult part with the MPBT method is when you changed your view from front to rear, your X/Y axis flipped. So if you were looking slightly down when you changed to the rear PoV, your rear weapon was pointing in the air and it could get confusing trying to get it lined up correctly, as right was left and up was down. Ideally, when you changed views, your X/Y axis would change with you so that a left move with the mouse/joystick would still look left.

[Amechwarrior]

Garth Erlam, on 25 November 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

Out of curiousity (love the idea, by the by) how would you fire the Centre reticle weapons, vs. the arm-mounted ones?

I remember a short thread on this here. To address the disparities between mouse vs joystick a ton of people came up with a bunch of good ideas. I tried to sum them up at the end of the thread. I think all together it makes a great system that allows the free reticle of MW3 and makes using the arms extra mobility easier. The easier it is for a new or causal player can use the arms separate from the torso, the more MWO will differentiate itself from other first person games.

[NiDes]

Multiple aiming would be nice, especially if you have missiles installed. Imagine, a targeting system for missile and primary arm (laser or projectile), at least now ECM would be much used.

[Ilfi]

Ideally, arms should have quicker reactions and a larger area that they can aim at, while torsos can only hit something in the center or near-center of your vision.

The problem arises when things start to get too complex for player controls to keep up with, and I imagine a lot of people will end up fumbling between torso-twisting and mouse-looking, not to mention having to separate weapon groups between arm- and torso-mounted weapons so they don't accidentally fire both but only have the arms hit.

With that in mind: one crosshair, but have torso weapons respond more slowly to aiming adjustments (you'd see the torso crosshair slowly move to match where the arms are pointing in your HUD).

EDIT: Also, if the aiming reticule reaches the edge of the screen, there should be some form of auto-torso-twisting so that you don't have to toggle between them constantly.

Edited by FenixStryk, 26 November 2011 - 03:52 PM.

[canned wolf]

I think this idea is great.
It gives you a choice, do you wait for a full lock (all weapons fully on target) or do you snap off a poorly aimed shot to disrupt them?

You could also do special groups for tag equiped weapons. If you detect a tag lock you could have missles set to autofire, effectively giving scouts the abillity to directly control your weapons.